Leona AglukkaqConservativeMinister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Mr. Speaker, there is no one answer to address suicide.

Our government has provided significant investments through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research on mental health. Our government also supports many major health promotion activities that have direct and indirect benefits on the mental health of Canadians, including programs like the embrace life council, the national aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy, the national anti-drug strategy, the aboriginal head start, community action program for children, family violence initiatives, brighter futures, building healthy communities, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, thousands of people commit suicide each year, and far too many of them are young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people in this age group. This already alarming suicide rate among young people is seven times higher among aboriginal and homosexual youth.

As critic for youth, I would like to ask the government if it is prepared to invest specifically in youth suicide prevention, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable youth.

Leona AglukkaqConservativeMinister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Mr. Speaker, since coming into power, our Conservative government has worked to improve the quality of life of all Canadians dealing with mental health challenges.

Earlier this year, I was proud to announce significant funding for the mental health projects to help improve the emotional and social health of children aged 6 to 12 years of age, as well as parents, teachers and community leaders. We look forward to the continued progress of the Mental Health Commission and these projects in promoting mental health in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is clear: our natural resources are being developed despite the lack of information on the environmental impact. The Minister of the Environment has invested billions of dollars with no results. That is bad management.

The minister has already broken his promise to regulate oil sands emissions this year. When will he implement an environmental plan for developing this natural resource?

I am disappointed, though not surprised, by the opposition's failure to recognize the commissioner's positive words on our government's accomplishments and our commitment with regard to oil sands monitoring. For example, the commissioner says:

In my view, the federal government has taken an important step forward by both acknowledging the deficiencies of the current system and setting out a detailed plan to fix them.

Our government does have a plan and I am glad the environment commissioner acknowledges it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no plan and the Auditor General's report spells it out for us in black and white.

It turns out that from day one the government actually planned to fail on fighting pollution and climate change.

Since its first plan was introduced in 2007, reductions are down by 90%, we have a hole in the ozone twice the size of Ontario, we have out of control oil sands pollution and there are ever-rising emissions.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to act? Why have they given up on the environment?

Mr. Speaker, our government has definitely not given up on the environment.

I was delighted that the commissioner acknowledged that, in recognizing that beyond Kyoto, the federal government has made new international and national commitments to the Copenhagen accord and the Cancun agreements.

I can assure the opposition that our government is working to ensure Canadians have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, the report tabled today confirms that the government gets failing marks when it comes to environmental protection. It is just one more example of how this government is not interested in the reality of the situation and has no plan for our environment.

There is a hole in the ozone layer. That is a scientific fact.

Will the government commit to maintaining funding for the monitoring program?

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is all too willing to abandon Canada's interests and to sacrifice jobs for Canadians.

Our government will balance the need to protect Canada's environment with the need to protect jobs for Canadians.

As I have answered many times in the House in recent weeks, Environment Canada will continue to monitor the ozone. The World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre will continue to deliver world-class services.

Mr. Speaker, the minister might be tired of talking about his reckless cuts to ozone monitoring but there are expert scientists who would love to talk and who are being muzzled by the government.

We have a hole in the ozone twice the size of Ontario. We have increasing pollution, especially in the tar sands, and new evidence today shows that Conservatives have been planning to fail on the environment.

It is no wonder that the minister is so afraid to hear from scientists. Where is the government's plan for ozone monitoring?

Mr. Speaker, as we have said any number of times in recent days, Canadians should be proud of the positive and terrific contributions that our scientists at Environment Canada make to international studies, such as the report on the Arctic ozone hole.

We do not muzzle our scientists. Our scientists speak regularly with the media and are available to inform members of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, our government is moving forward with the next phase of our plan with the tabling of the second budget bill. This includes pro-job and pro-family items, such as the hiring credit for small business, extending key tax relief for the manufacturing sector, legislating a permanent $2 billion gas tax fund for municipalities, new tax credits for volunteer firefighters and family caregivers, and a children's arts tax credit.

Most of all, we are forgiving loans for new doctors and nurses in underserved--

I would like to ask him again about the Lake of Bays project and why he sent out a press release, which was under embargo, bragging about the $4.5 million cheque that he was about to give to the council, even though the council told him that the plan had no viability, which meant that he had to hightail it out of town, chequebook in hand.

Now this would be funny if it did not show such a shocking disregard for the normal checks and balances of spending. Will the minister explain how he got his hands on money for a project that did not exist?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentions nothing new in his question.

What today does represent is 377 days since the member flip-flopped on the gun registry and still no apology to the people of Timmins—James Bay. I invite the member opposite to get on his feet right now and make that long overdue apology.

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Minister of Foreign Affairs is changing the channel. It is because the guy beside him is a big political liability. Perhaps he will explain.

Where was he when the rules were being broken by the Muskoka minister? Where was he when the Auditor General was being misled? Was he driving shotgun around the back woods while the Muskoka minister had a $4.5 million cheque to give out to a project that did not exist?

Does he believe that the rules apply to everybody else except for that minister and the government?

Mr. Speaker, it sounds as though the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going through customs: he has nothing to declare. I know why, because he was not present at the meetings where the scheme for the G8 summit was worked out. The Auditor General was unable to establish who approved the budget for the G8 slush fund. However, in the documents we obtained, the minister clearly told the mayor that the budget would be determined by the Prime Minister's Office.

If the Prime Minister's Office did not determine this budget, can the minister rise and explain his email?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General released a report some time ago, a copy of which certainly made its way to the Canadian voters before election day. There is nothing new in this question. The Auditor General came forward and made a number of observations on how we could do an even better job and be more transparent to Parliament. We fully accept those recommendations.

What happened was that 32 projects were funded and all 32 of them came in on or under budget. All 32 projects were also supporting public infrastructure in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is putting on a good show. However, what Canadians want is transparency and the truth. It was not this minister who wrote those emails. He did not attend the meetings. And, contrary to what the Minister of Foreign Affairs claims, the President of the Treasury Board told the mayor that the Prime Minister's Office would determine the budget. He even wrote that.

Is that why the minister is not allowed to answer the questions? Is it because he revealed that the Prime Minister's office was involved in the scandal.

Mr. Speaker, 32 projects were supported by Infrastructure Canada to support job creation and economic growth. They all came in on or under budget. There were 32 different contribution agreements for each of those projects that I approved. All of those projects provide good benefit to taxpayers now and will in the many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of National Defence and I, along with others, attended a conference put on by the military called “Caring for our Own”. One of the concerns raised by some of the soldiers was the fear that the military would not be there for them in their hour of need. Specific worries included PTSD, suicide ideation and suicide itself.

The next budget will be under severe pressure for cutting these “soft services”. Could the minister give the House assurances that our vulnerable soldiers and their families will be protected from these budgetary pressures?